Salutatio Rev_Null!
13-Apr-98, Rev_Null wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: !!!
 RM>> As I see it there is a 50/50 chance that either you are paying
 RM>> attention to the echo or that you are not.  I am pointing out the
 RM>> just as equal possibility that you are not.  I also base this on
 RM>> the messages I sent you over a month ago on this echo (that seem
 RM>> to be the only ones that "must have got lost", as you so quaintly
 RM>> put it).
 R> I did, however, suggest that the routed netmail you
 R> supposedly sent me a while back got lost.  Please be careful in
 R> paraphrasing me, I don't care for having my words taken out of
 R> context
I recall, now, finding it very interesting that it only happened to
those netmails (and the email I sent as well).
 R> I may not have been paying attention when you posted those
 R> particular messages, but I have seen other messages from you,
 R> complaining about my moderation style. My typical response is to
 R> chuckle and move on to the next message.  A proof of this claim is
 R> omitted                                  
 
Of course, it is quite impossible to supply such proof.
 R>>> Oh, by the way, if I had known the date of the echolist
 R>>> expiration, I would have sent in an update before the warning
 R>>> message was posted.
 RM>> There is no guarantee of the accuracy of this "hypothesis".  You
 RM>> and I both know how the echolist works, Scott and it has been
 RM>> exactly 6 month since the last time you came on (let me see,...
 RM>> was the topic about the "echo expiration", perhaps?).  Every six
 RM>> months you come back, update the echolist before you lose the
 RM>> echo, and mention publicly that you did so,... no one here sees
 RM>> you here at any other time.
 R> The above paragraph is hilarious.                  
 
I am sure it is to you.
 R> You seem to have selective memory as well as a belligerent
 R> attitude.
                       
"Belligerent"?  This is far more hilarious, Scott.  Care to take a vote
on how "belligerent" I am?  
 R> I have some information which will punch a hole in some of the
 R> statements you are making and may make you embarassed about it.  I
 R> was thinking of giving you this information, but I think it will be
 R> more amusing to watch you continue to follow the path that you're
 R> currently on
Why am I not surprised, that you would use this tactic?  ;)
Here is my philosophy of what I am doing here:
1) The moderator has decreed that PHIL remain in a state of anarchy.
2) One individual has actually told the moderator to "fuck off".
From these two points I gather that if it is okay to tell the moderator
to "fuck off", then it is quite alright to hound the moderator at will
without any risk of being banned from the echo.  Furthermore, if by some
freak chance the one doing the hounding gets banned, then it stands to
reason that the individual that told him to "fuck off" gets banned as
well.  ;)
Still amused?
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro
---------------